Why is Hinkley Point nuclear power station controversial

Britain opens world's largest offshore wind farm

Prime Minister David Cameron hails the London Array wind farm "a great win for Kent, a great win for renewable energy and a great win for Britain".

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/renewableenergy/10159719/Britain-opens-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-farm.html

 2:33PM BST 04 Jul 2013



Top 10 Offshore Wind Farms in the World

Wind farms are a major undertaking that use up a lot of space. Sometimes, offshore wind is the solution.
In this article, Energy Digital looks at the top 10 offshore wind farms by sheer generating capacity.

SOURCE:
http://www.energydigital.com/renewables/3804/Top-10-Offshore-Wind-Farms-in-the-World

10. Lincs - U.K., 270 MW

Located off the east coast of England, the Lincs Wind Farm is a £1 billion wind farm owned by Centrica, DONG Energy, and Siemens. The project began in 2004, though was only completed in 2013. A notable inclusion in the project is the extensive underground cable system that runs electricity back to land. This comprised 25 percent of the project’s cost and will outlast the 40 year lifespan of the project itself.

9. Meerwind Süd/Ost - Germany, 288 MW

The Meerwind wind farms are two separate wind farms (south and east) located in the German Bright of the North Sea. The farms only opened in September of last year and are owned by WindMW. The location of the project is particularly notable for its location, which boats a stellar combination of strong winds a convenient water depth. The farm also uses the nearby island of Helgoland as its maintenance base.

8. Thanet - U.K., 300 MW

The Thanet wind farm is off the southeastern cost of Kent in the U.K. When it was completed in 2010, it was set to be the largest operational wind farm in the world. Judging as how it’s now number eight on the list, that is no longer the case. Still, the Thanet project uses state-of-the-art Vestas turbines and is owned by Vattenfall.

7. Sheringham Shoal - U.K., 317 MW

If you haven’t figured it out by now, the U.K. is a major world leader in offshore wind energy and Sheringham Shoal is one of the country’s most iconic projects. The turbines are huge—so big, a double-decker bus could drive through one. Ownership of the project is split 50-50 between Statoil and Statkraft. The estimated actual output of the project is around 125 MW, which is sufficient to power approximately 220,000 average UK homes, more than twice the equivalent electricity required to supply the whole of the North Norfolk coast.

6. Thorntonbank - Belgium, 325 MW

Stationed off the north coast of Belgium, this farm recently reached its maximum planned capacity of 325 MW. The project was completed in three phases, with the most recently being finished in September of 2013. It currently has 54 operational units and cost an estimated £1.3 billion to complete. It was designed to have a minimum environmental impact to both sea life and shipping routes.
5. Walney - U.K., 367 MW
Located in the Irish Sea, the Walney Wind Farm is in a little shallower waters than some of the others on this list in only 19-23m waters. The project is a partnership between DONG Energy and Scottish and Southern Energy. DONG was awarded a 50-year lease for the project and completed the construction in two phases. The wind warm saw a small crisis earlier this year when a dive vessel crashed into one of the turbines and spilled a small amount of oil into a sea.

4. BARD Offshore 1 - Germany, 400 MW

The BARD Offshore 1 wind farm is also relatively new, as it was only completed in September of 2013. Owned by Enovos, the farm sits off the north coast of Germany. The project is noteworthy for its use of the Wind Lift 1 barge during its construction, which placed the massive, 470 ton, 21 meter foundations into the seabed.

3. Anholt - Denmark, 400 MW

The largest offshore wind farm in Denmark, Anholt was also only completed in September of 2013. A project of DONG Energy, the wind farm cost roughly 10 billion Danish kroner to build. This project is unique in its placement of the Siemens turbines. Usually, turbines are placed in a grid pattern of lines and rows, though that’s not the case with Anholt. The turbines placed in an unusual pattern, governed by two principles: put most of them along the edges, and put most in undisturbed airflow from the main direction, which is West-southwest—increasing production by 1.5%, a lifetime value of more than 100m Danish kroner.

2. Greater Gabbard - U.K., 504 MW

The Greater Gabbard wind farm started out as a project between Airtricity and Fluor, though through mergers, acquisitions and other moves, it is currently owned by Scottish and Southern Energy. It was finished in 2012, though there is ongoing work on the underwater cables for the project. The project will also undergo expansion, adding 140 turbines by 2017.

1. London Array - U.K., 630

The London Array is the king of the offshore wind farm. The project has multiple owners and has seen a huge investment of £1.8 billion. Located near the southwest coast of England, the project is a sight to behold. The array is intended to reduce annual CO2 emissions by roughly 900,000 tons—equal to the emissions of 300,000 passenger cars.



London Array Offshore Wind Farm from Aarsleff on Vimeo.

Climate of change / COP21

December 16th 2015 | Multiple countries | Alternatives
 
Late on Saturday, December 12th, delegates representing over 190 countries at the Paris climate conference formally adopted the Paris Agreement, which will set the tone for international action to tackle climate change. The agreement reinstates a global consensus on the need for broader action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, among both developed and developing economies, and provides an agreed framework for increasingly ambitious future action. 

The outcome of the Paris conference in itself will not solve the problem of climate change—it was never intended to—but the trajectory towards more interventionist policies aimed at reducing emissions could become irreversible as a result of it. What is less certain, however, in part because the agreement does not include specific targets on emissions reduction, is the pace at which countries will move along that trajectory. This will ultimately be decided by policymakers at the national level, but they will be operating in an environment where the actions of countries will come under increasing scrutiny at both global and national levels.

The agreement is a potential catalyst for more substantive action to reduce the carbon intensity of the global economy. Given that over the past few years there have been noticeable shifts in the attitudes of key nations, such as the US and China, towards reducing emissions, we believe that the Paris Agreement will facilitate meaningful action at a global level over the longer term.

The features of the agreement

The Paris Agreement will "come into force" once at least 55 countries covering at least 55% of emissions have signed up to it: the US, China and the EU alone will be virtually enough to clear the emissions hurdle, making ratification highly likely, as the wording of the text means that the US president, Barack Obama, can approve it without going to Congress. It allows for considerable flexibility among countries to determine how they will contribute to realising the overarching goal of placing a limit on the global average temperature increase. For example, there is no specific emissions-cutting target that is required for nations to adopt, nor a requirement to introduce a specific policy such as a carbon-pricing scheme, although market-based mechanisms are likely to play a more prominent role. The strength of the agreement, however, is that it facilitates a framework where countries will be encouraged, on the basis of ongoing review, to deliver on meeting emissions-reduction targets that are expected to become more ambitious over time. 

The highlights of the Paris Agreement are:

• To hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. This is a more ambitious objective than in previous international agreements on climate change. Furthermore, in a concession to small island states and other highly vulnerable states, the text also includes an aspiration to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.

• To aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, while recognising that peaking will take longer for developing countries. While no target year has been set for this emissions peak, there is a long-term commitment to "achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century". This effectively translates into a goal of net zero emissions to be achieved at some point beyond 2050.

• To put in place an ongoing framework that will encourage countries to communicate and update their climate policy targets, in the form of intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), on a regular five-yearly basis. The agreement establishes a framework of five-yearly "stocktakes" of progress made on climate policies from 2018, and these in turn will form the basis of submissions to be made by countries to strengthen their commitments to reduce emissions. These periodic national commitments are to be submitted every five years from 2020. The agreement therefore sets in motion a framework for an ongoing review of strategies to strengthen emissions reduction commitments over time.

• To guarantee continued and enhanced climate finance from the developed world to assist developing countries to adopt a lower emissions pathway and build climate resilience into their economies. A target of US$100bn is to be provided annually by 2020, with a floor of US$100bn in annual finance to be pledged by 2025, although delivered assistance is likely to be less than the amount pledged.

What the agreement means

The paths that countries must take to try to reach these goals are not prescribed. The agreement calls on countries to submit progressively stronger commitments, but there is no specific emissions reduction target for countries to reach by a certain year (although many, such as the US and EU countries, have targets in place anyway). This will be facilitated through a collective (but largely voluntary) framework that seeks to reach a peak in emissions and to limit the global temperature increase to below 2°C. While the specific national targets of earlier agreements are missing, provided that countries live up to their commitments under the framework now set, the Paris Agreement could prove to be a more durable one with a better chance of facilitating a speedier de-carbonisation pathway.
Over the past few years there has been a noticeable shift in the approach towards tackling climate change among the world's biggest emitters, namely the US and China. Unlike the Copenhagen conference in 2009, which was largely seen as a failure brought about by divisions between developed and emerging economies over who should do the most to cut emissions, the Paris Agreement avoided focusing on the mandated distribution of effort in order to achieve consensus. Promises of additional climate financing by developed countries and commitments by China and India to reduce the carbon intensity of their economies reflected a more co-operative approach between developed and emerging economies. While the agreement tactfully states that it will allow for a longer period of time before developing economies reach a peak in their emissions, there is also recognition that they have to act to curb emissions, and will be able to do so with financial and technical help from advanced economies.
Furthermore, in leaving it up to countries themselves to make emissions-reduction commitments, there is a greater chance of reaching climate goals than of enforcing a prescriptive global treaty without universal support (such as the Kyoto Protocol). The agreement is open to the criticism that there is nothing to discourage countries from making weak commitments. But it is unlikely that there will be a slide back to inaction given that the policy environment at a global level is shifting towards greater intervention to reduce emissions, the promotion of lower-carbon sources of energy, and the implementation of carbon pricing and trading schemes. 

Conclusion

In the short term progress is likely to be incremental, however, and we do not expect any immediate changes to business activity as a result of the Paris Agreement. Yet, for longer-term investment, it would be prudent to consider possible scenarios of future regulation designed to meet climate-related goals. The response of businesses is also likely to vary widely according to the countries and sectors in which they operate. In many countries the electricity and transport sectors, which are responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions, are already subject to tightening environmental rules. Air-quality regulations in China and the US, for example, have already had an impact on coal-fired power capacity. Yet in the absence of specific policy tools such as a carbon tax or effective carbon trading systems, the biggest emitters will feel little incentive in the short term to drastically amend their business plans in response to the Paris Agreement. But in the longer term carbon-pricing measures and other policy tools could become more widespread as countries adopt more far-reaching emissions-reduction goals. Indeed, several major oil and gas companies have already called for a carbon price to guide investment decisions in the fossil fuel industry, prioritising policy certainty.
The Paris Agreement is fundamentally different from previous ones: it is less about specifying targets and more about agreeing a process for action and monitoring. This may be an inflection point in global efforts to reduce emissions. The policy environment on climate change, which is shifting towards more intervention, has been given a workable global framework under which collective action can be taken. The trajectory of climate policy has been set, but the pace remains to be seen.

SOURCE:  http://www.eiu.com/industry/article/633782447/climate-of-change/2015-12-17

World Energy Consumption

Read the two graphs below and choose one to comment on:

SOURCE: Published in The Economist - January 7th 2016

Wylfa nuclear plant closes in Wales

Station in Anglesey, the oldest in the UK, shuts as focus is on energy provider EDF over its plans for new facilities at Hinkley Point

Terry Macalister

Wednesday 30 December 2015 18.15 GMTLast modified on Wednesday 30 December 2015 22.01 GMT

 

Britain’s oldest nuclear plant closed on Wednesday, leaving in its wake a £700m decommissioning bill and further questions about the UK’s ability to keep the lights on.
The closure of the Wylfa plant in Wales after 44 years of service puts more pressure on EDF Energy to take a final investment decision for new reactors at Hinkley in Somerset.
The station on the island of Anglesey generated enough electricity to power 1m homes, and with a capacity of 1,000MW was once the largest facility of its kind in the world. But after an earlier life extension scheme expired, the last of the 26 British-designed Magnox reactors was switched off by the private consortium that manages the plant for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).

Related: Government U-turn on renewables shows gas, oil and nuclear are still favourites

The site was due to close in 2010 but it was kept open for a further five years as fears mounted that Britain would face an electricity shortage because new atomic and gas-fired power plants were not being constructed. “Wylfa has been a terrific success story for Anglesey and the UK nuclear industry. We have generated safely and securely for many years, which is an excellent achievement,” said Stuart Law, the site director.
It will take another 10 years for the basic decommissioning to be undertaken at a cost of about £700m but the site cannot be redeveloped before the end of the century. High-level waste from Wylfa will remain on Anglesey until a national nuclear waste disposal facility is finally developed.
Britain still has a fleet of advanced cooled atomic reactors run by EDF but most of these will be retired by 2023 just as the government has also promised to halt all coal-fired power stations.
Hitachi of Japan is leading a Horizon Nuclear Power project to construct a new power plant at Wylfa, with a second earmarked for Oldbury in south Gloucestershire alongside a third facility planned in Cumbria. But the atomic industry’s revived fortunes ride primarily on the Hinkley C plant, which is expected to be the first new site since the Sizewell B station was completed in 1995.

 

The £18bn Somerset project has been repeatedly delayed but Chinese investors finally gave their support in the autumn while the government promised the latest in a series of subsidies. EDF signalled in October that it would start work at Hinkley and it is expected to give the formal investment the go ahead within weeks before later saying it may not come until after Christmas.

Hinkley Point C, intended to provide about 7% of the UK’s total electricity, was originally scheduled for completion by 2018 but the latest date is 2025. Sceptics still question whether it will make that later date given the experiences of delays and cost overruns with a similar power project at Flamanville in Normandy, northern France.
There have also been problems at the new Olkiluoto nuclear plant in Finland which is using the same plant design provided by EDF’s engineering partner Areva at Flamanville and planned for Hinkley.
National Grid, Britain’s electricity network operator, has played down the significance of the Wylfa closure and says it has put special measures in place to meet any mid-winter peaks in power demand. Another milestone in the change of Britain from a high to a lower carbon energy producer came two weeks ago when the country’s last deep coal mine, at Kellingley in North Yorkshire, closed.

SOURCE: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/30/wylfa-nuclear-plant-closes-in-wales
 

Share of UK power mix

Part of each fuel type for the generation of electricity in the UK - 2015

 

 

 

 

SOURCE:

from Carbon Brief July 2015 based on Decc data

Fuel for UK electricity /

http://transitionhighgate.org/what-are-we-doing/what-is-the-uk-doing/

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCE:

National Statistics / Electricity: Chapter 5, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES) - last update June 2015

http://www.carbonbrief.org/five-charts-show-the-historic-shifts-in-uk-energy-last-year

 



The Interactive U.K. Energy Consumption Guide

In 2010, total UK overall primary energy consumption in primary energy terms (i.e. fuels obtained directly from natural sources) was 218.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent, 3 per cent higher than in 2009. However, it should be noted that in 2009 UK primary energy consumption was at its lowest level in the last 20 years as a result of the downturn in the economy.

View the data